Should the M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy motorway be built? [project approved]

Golfer50

marno21 wrote: »

I did, and then a few days later I saw what was coming out at the oral hearing, and I just couldn't help myself.....

If you feel I'm holding you back from debating the issue I will leave again.

No, no, you're fine. I was just trying to lighten the mood!

I have been to the oral hearings on some parts of days and have heard a lot of contributions from both sides. Newsflash: Facebook and The Examiner are not part of the planning process no more than Boards.ie is. If you want to know what's going on, people here need to get away from your computer and go to the venue. Then you can speak with authority. Ignore all other sources.

In fairness some of the objectors have made passionate personal speeches because they have been driven to it due to their own position. I might not agree with everything they say but they are entitled to be heard. So are the contributors here if they decide to get to actually go and listen rather than slagging people based on inaccurate newspaper reports or hearsay. That is a total waste of time.

The applicant side starts each module be refuting points made in written submissions. Sometimes these make sense, sometimes these are bluff and bluster. Observers and Objectors then get a chance to make rebuttal submissions or add further information.

I'd like to single out Cllr Marcia Dalton here. I've seen some of her contributions on the anti side and she invariably presents a well researched dissection of many figures and opinions expressed in the EIS. She is well informed and passionate too . . . about regulations, obligations, citizens and their rights. She presents facts. Today she did presentations on noise and the splitting of Ringaskiddy. Facts, figures, maps etc. Real stuff. Not conjecture.

The applicant side is represented by a barrister who introduces consultatnts from RPS mostly from what I see. I haven't seen anyone from CoCoCo or TII at the table yet. They prefer to pay counsel to put their case. Contributions and interactions are very civilised and there is no slagging off or name calling or shouts of "lies". Everyone I've spoken to respects the way the inspector is conducting things, being very fair to all sides. The tone of stuff on this thread would certainly not be tolerated.

From what I've seen, the case is far from cut and dried, as people here think. I await with interest the report of the inspector and any recommendations.

Btw I've used up valuable holidays to attend, as have many others. The hearing finishes this phase tomorrow and is due to reconvene in Carrigaline Court on November 28th for one more day, or so!

Golfer50

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

The next chance i get if i have a day off i'm actually going to go to a meeting and take notes, the last meeting in the ambassador i couldn't get off work.

FYI the oral hearing ran in the Ambassador from Tuesday to Friday last week and Tuesday to Friday this week so far. That's 8 days. I believe things ran till 9 last Friday and it was approx 7.30 tonight.

boardsuser1

Golfer50 wrote: »

FYI the oral hearing ran in the Ambassador from Tuesday to Friday last week and Tuesday to Friday this week so far. That's 8 days. I believe things ran till 9 last Friday and it was approx 7.30 tonight.

Yeah was aware of that.

Between work and medical appointments I haven’t been able to get to any of them, I’m hoping to make at least 1 day.

Rooy

marno21 wrote: »

Video here: https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/prime-time-30003251/10804317/

No suggestion that motorways are to blame for robbers, just that it enables gangs to escape faster due to lack of local Gardai and resultant response times. Local suggests placing ANPR cameras on motorway on ramps and off ramps. Would 100% agree here.

I just thought it was unbelievable that they are putting everything they can possibly think of out there to put doubt in peoples mind ,throw enough mud etc i guess. I didnt think it the appeal/hearing would lead to anything , but now Im not so sure with all the negative publicity generated and the backing they have via the press and politicians, interesting to see if common sense will prevail.

highwaymaniac

Simon Coveney has just finished giving his submission. Disappointed but not surprised at how one sided it was in favour of the objector residents. They have very legimate concerns etc need to be engaged with in meaningful way. Mentioned alternatives, need to be properly assessed, onus on the applicant to demonstrate this is the best route.

He specifically mentioned the mount oval off ramp - how it would completely change the area and would essentially be on top of the people's back gardens!

I really hope ABP have the wisdom to remove it from the scheme.

Ludo

highwaymaniac wrote: »

I really hope ABP have the wisdom to remove it from the scheme.

Would be disastrous if they did to be honest. It take a lot of traffic from going onto the Rochestown road and up Clarkes Hill. That exit backs up all the time. Removing the Mount Oval off ramp would only back it up a lot more and make it dangerous.

A lot more than traffic going just to Mount Oval uses it by the way in case people think they don't. A lot of people from Thornbury on Coach Hill all the way up to Maryborough Hill use it. Peoples prejudices against Mount Oval ( you can include me in that) shouldn't colour their opinion.

highwaymaniac

Ludo wrote: »

Would be disastrous if they did to be honest. It take a lot of traffic from going onto the Rochestown road and up Clarkes Hill. That exit backs up all the time. Removing the Mount Oval off ramp would only back it up a lot more and make it dangerous.

A lot more than traffic going just to Mount Oval uses it by the way in case people think they don't. A lot of people from Thornbury on Coach Hill all the way up to Maryborough Hill use it. Peoples prejudices against Mount Oval ( you can include me in that) shouldn't colour their opinion.

The existing diverge should never have been built day one. Cork Co Co should have stuck to their original plans. Maryborough Hill traffic can use the new Carrs's Hill junction and link road back down to MH. Lights are going in on the Rochestown Road roundabout so that movement can get priority to reduce queues on the off ramp.

It's all local traffic - national road infrastructure should not be compromised to facilitate it. The only real consideration local traffic should get is its potential to affect flows and cause delays on the national road. Nothing against Mount Oval, just hate seeing national road infrastructure suffering because of by poor policy and planning decisions.

boardsuser1

The level of local representation in this is crazy, i quote Cllr Marcia Dalton from the Irish Times earlier this week.

"Cllr D’Alton said that contrary to much of the commentary, the upgrading of the N28 to motorway status was not essential for the Port of Cork to relocate its operations at the City Docks and Tivoli and this had been acknowledged by the Port of Cork itself"

And this woman claims to represent the people without knowing that not only is EU funding covering the motorway, under EU law it's obligatory in order for the Port Of Cork to move.

zetalambda

The steering groups arguments are fast becoming invalid.

Tesla unveils all-electric semi truck:

http://www.thejournal.ie/tesla-semi-truck-3703050-Nov2017/

Ludo

highwaymaniac wrote: »

It's all local traffic - national road infrastructure should not be compromised to facilitate it. The only real consideration local traffic should get is its potential to affect flows and cause delays on the national road. Nothing against Mount Oval, just hate seeing national road infrastructure suffering because of by poor policy and planning decisions.

How is is causing an issue to the national route? The current road is 100 kmph and the new one will be also regardless of this off-ramp.
Why does it cause any issue? I'm obviously missing something .

kub

Ludo wrote: »

Would be disastrous if they did to be honest. It take a lot of traffic from going onto the Rochestown road and up Clarkes Hill. That exit backs up all the time. Removing the Mount Oval off ramp would only back it up a lot more and make it dangerous.

A lot more than traffic going just to Mount Oval uses it by the way in case people think they don't. A lot of people from Thornbury on Coach Hill all the way up to Maryborough Hill use it. Peoples prejudices against Mount Oval ( you can include me in that) shouldn't colour their opinion.

Well The Steering group are moaning about it, the original spec was this was to be closed off. Residents of Mount Oval got very rattled and along came the Fianna Fail super popularity heros and got it back on the plans.

The Steering group moan about it.

I think it is a joke, you could drive from Belfast all the way down on motorways and dual carriageways at normal speeds, you get to this slip road and boom you are in a housing estate.
Is there anywhere else with an off ramp like this? I think it is dangerous.
Usually traffic comes off motorways to off ramps where gradually the traffic is slowed ending at a Yield sign at a roundabout.
With Mount Oval some kid could come out of a ditch after his ball and is in danger of traffic at motorway speed or just below it.

Golfer50

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

The level of local representation in this is crazy, i quote Cllr Marcia Dalton from the Irish Times earlier this week.

"Cllr D’Alton said that contrary to much of the commentary, the upgrading of the N28 to motorway status was not essential for the Port of Cork to relocate its operations at the City Docks and Tivoli and this had been acknowledged by the Port of Cork itself"

And this woman claims to represent the people without knowing that not only is EU funding covering the motorway, under EU law it's obligatory in order for the Port Of Cork to move.

What she referred to as explained further along is that Port of Cork said a motorway upgrade was not necessary for it to proceed with the first phases of the move to Ringaskiddy. This means that there is still a window for further work on this motorway proposal.
If you think that this "woman" doesn't know what she's talking about . . . . I'm afraid you are very, very wide of the mark

boardsuser1

Golfer50 wrote: »

What she referred to as explained further along is that Port of Cork said a motorway upgrade was not necessary for it to proceed with the first phases of the move to Ringaskiddy. This means that there is still a window for further work on this motorway proposal.
If you think that this "woman" doesn't know what she's talking about . . . . I'm afraid you are very, very wide of the mark

I’m of the belief you are a member of the steering group. Or have an affiliation of some kind.

Would I be right?

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

No, no, you're fine. I was just trying to lighten the mood!

I have been to the oral hearings on some parts of days and have heard a lot of contributions from both sides. Newsflash: Facebook and The Examiner are not part of the planning process no more than Boards.ie is. If you want to know what's going on, people here need to get away from your computer and go to the venue. Then you can speak with authority. Ignore all other sources.

In fairness some of the objectors have made passionate personal speeches because they have been driven to it due to their own position. I might not agree with everything they say but they are entitled to be heard. So are the contributors here if they decide to get to actually go and listen rather than slagging people based on inaccurate newspaper reports or hearsay. That is a total waste of time.

The applicant side starts each module be refuting points made in written submissions. Sometimes these make sense, sometimes these are bluff and bluster. Observers and Objectors then get a chance to make rebuttal submissions or add further information.

I'd like to single out Cllr Marcia Dalton here. I've seen some of her contributions on the anti side and she invariably presents a well researched dissection of many figures and opinions expressed in the EIS. She is well informed and passionate too . . . about regulations, obligations, citizens and their rights. She presents facts. Today she did presentations on noise and the splitting of Ringaskiddy. Facts, figures, maps etc. Real stuff. Not conjecture.

The applicant side is represented by a barrister who introduces consultatnts from RPS mostly from what I see. I haven't seen anyone from CoCoCo or TII at the table yet. They prefer to pay counsel to put their case. Contributions and interactions are very civilised and there is no slagging off or name calling or shouts of "lies". Everyone I've spoken to respects the way the inspector is conducting things, being very fair to all sides. The tone of stuff on this thread would certainly not be tolerated.

From what I've seen, the case is far from cut and dried, as people here think. I await with interest the report of the inspector and any recommendations.

Btw I've used up valuable holidays to attend, as have many others. The hearing finishes this phase tomorrow and is due to reconvene in Carrigaline Court on November 28th for one more day, or so!

Regarding FB and the Examiner, the M28 Steering Group are using Facebook as a method of communication. The Examiner are supposed to be reporting the news to Cork as it's where most Cork people get their news. Both are reporting outright lies and are trying to scaremonger. This I have an issue. I would be at the Oral Hearing but I can't take 7 days off work during a busy time to check to see if the paper are reporting the oral hearing truthfully.

I have ZERO issue with people voicing their concern. If their concern is cause for actual concern, I would back them up. The stuff the Steeering Group are coming out with is not an issue. It's coming across as Harrington and a few others personal agenda with the M28 and trying every trick in the book to try and cause outrage and uproar. The latest stuff about health concerns and robberies is just rubbish. These people live in a car centric area of a car centric city. Fumes and noise are part of their daily lives, and they are part of the cause of the fumes and noise.

Marcia Dalton.. has she proposed an alternative? Or is it just an issue with routing the motorway through Rochestown? At least Harrington and Co are admitting to being NIMBYs by proposing the Ballygarvan routing. If we all worried about the small side effects of development we'd never make any progress. Was the N40 a bad idea by splitting Douglas? The Pfizer/Novartis/Biomarin etc plants in Ringaskiddy may have taken farmland from local farmers, but in return their sons may have gotten jobs there and they didn't have to drive them to Shannon to head to America to find work. There is no silver bullet here, there will always be "splitting" of communities etc. Noise complaints are nonsensical because most of the people doing the complaining about the M28 directly contribute to the noise by driving themselves. The existing N28 also makes noise and will continue to do so should the M28 be denied permissio.

RPS are the consulting engineers who were appointed to TII to bring this to planning approval. The Route Selection/EIS/Design is all their work done in conjunction with Cork County Council and TII.

Of course the tone of this thread isn't reflected in the oral hearing. We go by usernames here, this is an informal internet forum. The Oral Hearing was never going to be a shouting match or M28 bashing session. Doing so would destroy the credibility of any

Rooy wrote: »

I just thought it was unbelievable that they are putting everything they can possibly think of out there to put doubt in peoples mind ,throw enough mud etc i guess. I didnt think it the appeal/hearing would lead to anything , but now Im not so sure with all the negative publicity generated and the backing they have via the press and politicians, interesting to see if common sense will prevail.

This is fearmongering and propaganda. If they were so worried about people accessing their homes they would close the Mount Oval and Maryborough slips to stop people getting away. Again, the claim of motorways causing more robberies was as usual, not backed up with facts.

highwaymaniac wrote: »

Simon Coveney has just finished giving his submission. Disappointed but not surprised at how one sided it was in favour of the objector residents. They have very legimate concerns etc need to be engaged with in meaningful way. Mentioned alternatives, need to be properly assessed, onus on the applicant to demonstrate this is the best route.

He specifically mentioned the mount oval off ramp - how it would completely change the area and would essentially be on top of the people's back gardens!

I really hope ABP have the wisdom to remove it from the scheme.

Coveney on 96FM talked about how necessary the M28 is. Perhaps one attitude infront of the protestors and one in front of the people driving home from work sitting in traffic on Carrs Hill/at Shannonpark. The applicant have already demonstrated this is the best route. This isn't going to change.

Ludo wrote: »

Would be disastrous if they did to be honest. It take a lot of traffic from going onto the Rochestown road and up Clarkes Hill. That exit backs up all the time. Removing the Mount Oval off ramp would only back it up a lot more and make it dangerous.

A lot more than traffic going just to Mount Oval uses it by the way in case people think they don't. A lot of people from Thornbury on Coach Hill all the way up to Maryborough Hill use it. Peoples prejudices against Mount Oval ( you can include me in that) shouldn't colour their opinion.

Objecting to noise and pollution yet recommending a motorway offramp directly into a housing estate is totally and utterly hypocritical. What about all the noise and noxious gases the people living beside the poorly aligned Mount Oval sliproad have to deal with on a daily basis?

highwaymaniac wrote: »

The existing diverge should never have been built day one. Cork Co Co should have stuck to their original plans. Maryborough Hill traffic can use the new Carrs's Hill junction and link road back down to MH. Lights are going in on the Rochestown Road roundabout so that movement can get priority to reduce queues on the off ramp.

It's all local traffic - national road infrastructure should not be compromised to facilitate it. The only real consideration local traffic should get is its potential to affect flows and cause delays on the national road. Nothing against Mount Oval, just hate seeing national road infrastructure suffering because of by poor policy and planning decisions.

This is it. The off ramp reeks of brown envelope syndrome and would never get permission today. There is only one other place in Cork where there is a motorway (or 120km/h dual carriageway) exit directly into a housing estate and that's on the Ballincollig bypass, and is traffic calmed with roundabouts. It should never have been opened and is totally inappropriate.

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

The level of local representation in this is crazy, i quote Cllr Marcia Dalton from the Irish Times earlier this week.

"Cllr D’Alton said that contrary to much of the commentary, the upgrading of the N28 to motorway status was not essential for the Port of Cork to relocate its operations at the City Docks and Tivoli and this had been acknowledged by the Port of Cork itself"

And this woman claims to represent the people without knowing that not only is EU funding covering the motorway, under EU law it's obligatory in order for the Port Of Cork to move.

Do the people of Rochestown and Douglas prefer more trucks idling on Maryborough Hill and Carrs Hill emitting more fumes when they could be moving?

zetalambda wrote: »

The steering groups arguments are fast becoming invalid.

Tesla unveils all-electric semi truck:

http://www.thejournal.ie/tesla-semi-truck-3703050-Nov2017/

By the time the M28 is built we will be seeing a respectable number of electric vehicles and hybrids on the roads. The fumes issue is becoming extinct.

Ludo wrote: »

How is is causing an issue to the national route? The current road is 100 kmph and the new one will be also regardless of this off-ramp.
Why does it cause any issue? I'm obviously missing something .

Private accesses onto motorways are forbidden. They lead to rat runs, and this one is poorly aligned and not traffic calmed.

Golfer50

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I’m of the belief you are a member of the steering group. Or have an affiliation of some kind.

Would I be right?

No. You would be wrong again I'm afraid. I'm a local resident who tries to stay informed - No affiliation to Steering Group other than attending the public meetings and sharing many of their concerns.

boardsuser1

Golfer50 wrote: »

What she referred to as explained further along is that Port of Cork said a motorway upgrade was not necessary for it to proceed with the first phases of the move to Ringaskiddy. This means that there is still a window for further work on this motorway proposal.
If you think that this "woman" doesn't know what she's talking about . . . . I'm afraid you are very, very wide of the mark

This is a matter of difference of opinion. Which is why we are here constructively discussing it.

Golfer50 wrote: »

No. You would be wrong again I'm afraid. I'm a local resident who tries to stay informed - No affiliation to Steering Group other than attending the public meetings and sharing many of their concerns.

There is no "Wrong again i'm afraid"

As above, it is a matter of a difference of opinion.

And as a local resident are you happy to see this moving on?

The M28 was a topic i used to regularly discuss on the doorsteps in a previous employment and bar less than a handful of people, most were in favour of it.

boardsuser1

marno21 wrote: »

Regarding FB and the Examiner, the M28 Steering Group are using Facebook as a method of communication. The Examiner are supposed to be reporting the news to Cork as it's where most Cork people get their news. Both are reporting outright lies and are trying to scaremonger. This I have an issue. I would be at the Oral Hearing but I can't take 7 days off work during a busy time to check to see if the paper are reporting the oral hearing truthfully.

I have ZERO issue with people voicing their concern. If their concern is cause for actual concern, I would back them up. The stuff the Steeering Group are coming out with is not an issue. It's coming across as Harrington and a few others personal agenda with the M28 and trying every trick in the book to try and cause outrage and uproar. The latest stuff about health concerns and robberies is just rubbish. These people live in a car centric area of a car centric city. Fumes and noise are part of their daily lives, and they are part of the cause of the fumes and noise.

Marcia Dalton.. has she proposed an alternative? Or is it just an issue with routing the motorway through Rochestown? At least Harrington and Co are admitting to being NIMBYs by proposing the Ballygarvan routing. If we all worried about the small side effects of development we'd never make any progress. Was the N40 a bad idea by splitting Douglas? The Pfizer/Novartis/Biomarin etc plants in Ringaskiddy may have taken farmland from local farmers, but in return their sons may have gotten jobs there and they didn't have to drive them to Shannon to head to America to find work. There is no silver bullet here, there will always be "splitting" of communities etc. Noise complaints are nonsensical because most of the people doing the complaining about the M28 directly contribute to the noise by driving themselves. The existing N28 also makes noise and will continue to do so should the M28 be denied permissio.

RPS are the consulting engineers who were appointed to TII to bring this to planning approval. The Route Selection/EIS/Design is all their work done in conjunction with Cork County Council and TII.

Of course the tone of this thread isn't reflected in the oral hearing. We go by usernames here, this is an informal internet forum. The Oral Hearing was never going to be a shouting match or M28 bashing session. Doing so would destroy the credibility of any




This is fearmongering and propaganda. If they were so worried about people accessing their homes they would close the Mount Oval and Maryborough slips to stop people getting away. Again, the claim of motorways causing more robberies was as usual, not backed up with facts.



Coveney on 96FM talked about how necessary the M28 is. Perhaps one attitude infront of the protestors and one in front of the people driving home from work sitting in traffic on Carrs Hill/at Shannonpark. The applicant have already demonstrated this is the best route. This isn't going to change.



Objecting to noise and pollution yet recommending a motorway offramp directly into a housing estate is totally and utterly hypocritical. What about all the noise and noxious gases the people living beside the poorly aligned Mount Oval sliproad have to deal with on a daily basis?



This is it. The off ramp reeks of brown envelope syndrome and would never get permission today. There is only one other place in Cork where there is a motorway (or 120km/h dual carriageway) exit directly into a housing estate and that's on the Ballincollig bypass, and is traffic calmed with roundabouts. It should never have been opened and is totally inappropriate.



Do the people of Rochestown and Douglas prefer more trucks idling on Maryborough Hill and Carrs Hill emitting more fumes when they could be moving?



By the time the M28 is built we will be seeing a respectable number of electric vehicles and hybrids on the roads. The fumes issue is becoming extinct.



Private accesses onto motorways are forbidden. They lead to rat runs, and this one is poorly aligned and not traffic calmed.

Trucks would be at their highest level of fuel efficiency when moving along continuously.

Stopping/Starting/Braking/Accelerating as is the case on the current set up is more harmful than on a motorway.

For example, A Mercedes Benz truck would go through a tank of diesel in that general area in less than 2 working days at 250 litres per tank.

The same truck on the M8 motorway would get 50% more in fuel efficiency.

I know this as i worked as a truck driver in the area until recently.

I didn't see any protesters out complaining about the toxic fumes emitted from my truck though,and all of this was along the proposed M28 route.

If the steering group are so against fumes, they need to put adblue into their cars.

https://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/warning-to-drivers-of-diesel-cars-over-need-for-adblue-34542777.html

Ludo

marno21 wrote: »

Private accesses onto motorways are forbidden. They lead to rat runs, and this one is poorly aligned and not traffic calmed.

There is no access onto the motorway (and nor will there be in the future plans) so that is not an issue. It is also not private so again not an issue. And there is traffic calming. That is three incorrect statements in 2 sentences. And you say the steering group are bad :-)

Have you ever actually taken the exit? Also how it is "poorly aligned"? Not sure what that means to be honest.

As I said in the other thread, Ivam generally in favour of this road but god this thread is like the steering group in reverse...both pushing me away from their opinions due to their intransigence.

Golfer50

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

There is no "Wrong again i'm afraid"

As above, it is a matter of a difference of opinion.

Fair enough.
But if I see something that I think is factually incorrect I have to try to correct it.

marno21

Ludo wrote: »

There is no access onto the motorway (and nor will there be in the future plans) so that is not an issue. It is also not private so again not an issue. And there is traffic calming. That is three incorrect statements in 2 sentences. And you say the steering group are bad :-)

Have you ever actually taken the exit? Also how it is "poorly aligned"? Not sure what that means to be honest.

You'll have to excuse me, I spent 15 minutes typing out a long post and this was at the end of it. A three hour drive home on the N20 doesn't help.

There is an access tacked onto the motorway, from the motorway only. It's a private entrance in the sense that it's exclusively meant for access to an estate. It's not even signposted from the N28 and is very tight and comes out of nowhere. That to me is dangerous.

There is no roundabout or anything to slow traffic on the exit. What traffic calming is there? It's poorly aligned in that there's no slip lane and it's a tight bend on the exit from looking at a map. Of course I haven't taken the exit as I don't live in the estate. Why else would I take it? Looking at Google Maps the only signage at the exit is an advertisement for the houses in the estate. That tells you enough about it. It's a glorified driveway.

By the way, I would keep it open as the surrounding area relies on it and closing it would cause issues in the area. It should be realigned however to the latest design standards to make it safer.

Golfer50

marno21 wrote: »

By the way, I would keep it open as the surrounding area relies on it and closing it would cause issues in the area. It should be realigned however to the latest design standards to make it safer.

That is the plan and the new alignment is in the EIS.

boardsuser1

marno21 wrote: »

By the way, I would keep it open as the surrounding area relies on it and closing it would cause issues in the area. It should be realigned however to the latest design standards to make it safer.

I'm in agreement with that.

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

That is the plan and the new alignment is in the EIS.

I know that - but the Taliban have an issue with this - if they want it to remain open they need to accept it needs to be made safer first.

By the way - from the route map, it does look like it will be quite obtrusive on houses given the size of the cutting they propose. This may be an attempt to make it a point of conflict in order to have it removed from the plan. Can it be done without all the intrusion is the issue.

Of course - it would've been better if first day the Maryborough exit also had an offramp from the N28, and there was a diverge from the offramp to Mount Oval village. Would've solved all this and would also have given better access to Mount Oval village. The current setup is a shambles.

highwaymaniac

Ludo wrote: »

How is is causing an issue to the national route? The current road is 100 kmph and the new one will be also regardless of this off-ramp.
Why does it cause any issue? I'm obviously missing something .

All junctions reduce capacity on the mainline - ripple effect of cars breaking due to merging and diverging. Also increase traffic to the national route that otherwise would use the local road network. Recommended distance between junctions is 2km to minimise the effects of weaving issues. In this case the diverge is very close to the Bloomfield interchange (circa 1km) and the proposed upgraded diverge, with a proper taper to the relevant design standard, is closer again at circa 600m. The movement N40 westbound to Mount Oval diverge will be quite dangerous in the new proposal in my view.

Middle Man

marno21 wrote: »

You'll have to excuse me, I spent 15 minutes typing out a long post and this was at the end of it. A three hour drive home on the N20 doesn't help.

There is an access tacked onto the motorway, from the motorway only. It's a private entrance in the sense that it's exclusively meant for access to an estate. It's not even signposted from the N28 and is very tight and comes out of nowhere. That to me is dangerous.

There is no roundabout or anything to slow traffic on the exit. What traffic calming is there? It's poorly aligned in that there's no slip lane and it's a tight bend on the exit from looking at a map. Of course I haven't taken the exit as I don't live in the estate. Why else would I take it? Looking at Google Maps the only signage at the exit is an advertisement for the houses in the estate. That tells you enough about it. It's a glorified driveway.

By the way, I would keep it open as the surrounding area relies on it and closing it would cause issues in the area. It should be realigned however to the latest design standards to make it safer.

Yes, there's going to be major realignment work to bring the Mount Oval off-slip up to standard - that's one of the reasons why so much vegetation has to go. I'm not from the area, so maybe I'm wrong but the proposed slip seems like a massive overkill for residential access - if it's to be retained however, the proposed specification is required for modern modern motorway geometric standards.

Ludo

I must say I don't understand why they are changing it at all. There are already 2 lanes here heading towards carrigaline and the speed limit is already 100. Why not just leave that southbound road as is until the point it goes to a single lane. Start the improvements in that dude there. The new one isn't going to be much different anyway other than making exits closer together as you say.

I would have no problems with them scrapping it either if another exit is provided at maryborough hill in order to prevent sending all that traffic onto rochestown road.

Golfer50

marno21 wrote: »

Can I ask your opinion on the slip road to Mount Oval?

Sorry, I just saw this.
I think the slip road was put there initially because there was no local infrastructure to cater for the massive development in Mount Oval Village. Planning should only have been allowed there subject to a major revamp of Clarkes Hill - that has never happened though, even all these years later. I thought at the time that there should have been an access on to the N28 too. I do pity the residents there as their exit is very restricted . . .the slip road at least gave a good access. I think there are ramps at the top of the ramp to slow traffic before it reaches the houses. As you say above it is now an established route so hence the outcry when it was proposed to remove it. This because it didn't conform to M standards Subsequently the "applicants" came back with the revised plan with appropriate run in and radius . . with the adverse consequence of bringing it closer to Rowan Hill residents.
I do'nt use it but I'm sure it's very important to those living there. The alternative is off at the Rochestown queue and then the Clarkes Hill. Not great.

Edit: Sorry, I see Middle Man / Ludo have dealt with this above.

highwaymaniac

Ludo wrote: »

I must say I don't understand why they are changing it at all. There are already 2 lanes here heading towards carrigaline and the speed limit is already 100. Why not just leave that southbound road as is until the point it goes to a single lane. Start the improvements in that dude there. The new one isn't going to be much different anyway other than making exits closer together as you say.

I would have no problems with them scrapping it either if another exit is provided at maryborough hill in order to prevent sending all that traffic onto rochestown road.

There is a pinch point at Lissadell on the western side so they have to widen a bit on the eastern side to fit in the new cross section which includes central median barrier and also widened median for sight-lines (widening is overkill especially given restricted space).

If the Mount Oval diverge does have to be retained then the design certainly could be improved from what is proposed to lessen the impact and maximise the weaving length. Get rid of the central median over widening and use a compact "left-in" type junction. Couple of examples on the M18 near Ennis. Not ideal but best compromise given its an existing junction.

boardsuser1

I'll end up with high blood pressure due to all the tripe coming out of Harrington's mouth:

Justin Gerard Harrington Thank you Simon Coveney for your honest assessment of the entire project in terms of the issues / concerns and the need for an M28 which will have a substantial impact on residents as both acknowledged and confirmed over the past fortnight. We look forward to achieving a result which benefits ALL stake holders!

Middle Man

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I'll end up with high blood pressure due to all the tripe coming out of Harrington's mouth:

Justin Gerard Harrington Thank you Simon Coveney for your honest assessment of the entire project in terms of the issues / concerns and the need for an M28 which will have a substantial impact on residents as both acknowledged and confirmed over the past fortnight. We look forward to achieving a result which benefits ALL stake holders!

+10

PURE TRIPE!